zss- 





Gass E ^<T_ 



Book.7^^ 



35th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. C Report 
1st Session. S I No. 284. 






JOHN McDowell— LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF. 



^^o..,. 



.^>c;. April 17, 1858. 

Mr. CuRRT, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the 

following 

REPORT. 

The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the peti- 
tion of the representatives of John McDowell, after a consideration of 
the same, adopt the report made on this case at the 2d session of the 
27th Congress : 

The petitioners ask the commutation pay lor the services of John 
McDowell, as a lieutenant in the Virginia continental line, from 1776 
to the close of the war. 

It appears from the rolls of the Virginia line that John McDowell 
was an ensign in the 12th Virginia ri giment, at its first organization 
in December, 1776 ; that he was retained in service, as a lieutenant, 
at the arrangement made at White Plains, in September, 1778, hav- 
ing been promoted to a lieutenancy September 7, 1778 — the 12th then 
becoming the 8th regiment ; that he was also retained in service at 
the arrangement at Middlebrook, in March, 1779 ; and his name is also 
found among those of the officers in service at the Chesterfield ar- 
rangement, made in February, 1781. But his name is omitted on all 
the subsequent arrangements of the line ; nor was he returned as en- 
titled to bounty land, or commutation, at the close of the war. It 
appears from the Cumberland arrangement, made in May, 1782, that 
McDowell had previously resigned, and that Mr. Luddeman had, on 
the 15th of June, 1781, been appointed lieutenant in his place. His 
name is also found on the list of resigned officers, made at Cumberland 
court-house September 2, 1782. — (See report 436, 1st sess. 26th Con- 
gress, page 102.) It appears, also, that on the 18th of June, 1783, 
Lieutenant McDowell personally settled his account with the Virginia 
authorities, and received pay for his services, ending June 16, 1781, 
which was no doubt the date of his resignation. 

This case furnishes a striking example of the little reliance that can 
be placed on parol evidence, recently taken, of the revolutionary ser- 
vices of officers, however respectable and intelligent the witnesses may 
be. There are produced the affidavits, taken in 1831, of Colonel 
Abraham Bowman and Colonel Abraham Buford, of the revolutionary 
army, which are very strong that Lieutenant McDowell served to the 
end of the war. Colonel Bownan says that he commanded the 8th 






JOHN MCDOWELL. 



Virginia regiment in the revolutionary war, was well acquainted with 
Lieutenant McDowell, and that he knoivs said McDowell did serve to 
the end of the revolutionary war — " that is to say, he was either in 
actual service or on furlough until the war closed, in 1783, and that 
said McDowell was entitled to his commutation certificates, and would 
have gotten them had he applied for them." If this were true, would 
Lieutenant McDowell, in 1783, have heen content to accept of pay for 
his services only to the 16th of June, 1781 ? Moreover, is it probable 
he would have neglected to obtain his commutation certificates, if 
they could have been got by the mere asking for them? Would he 
have been entered as a resigned officer, and his place filled by another, 
if he had served to the close of the war ? Probably Colonel Bowman 
thought he knew the facts he stated ; but that he could not have known 
them personally is apparent from the fact, tvhich appears from the rolls, 
that he was himself only in continental service for a short period — 
from some time in 1777 till September, 1778. On the arrangement 
at White Plains, made in September, 1778, the name of Colonel Bow- 
man is entered among those who had then become supernumerary, 
and against his name is written, " supposed will resign." That he 
did resign there is very little doubt, from the fact that, in the arrange- 
ment made in March following, his name is not mentioned as either 
in service or as supernumerary, which it would have been had he not 
resigned. But, whether he resigned or not, his service terminated in 
September, 1778, and he could not have had accurate personal know- 
ledge afterwards of Lieutenant McDowell's service. 

Colonel Buford did serve in the continental line to the close of the 
war, but his evidence is less positive than that of Colonel Bowman. 
He says he knew Lieutenant McDowell in the northern army, and 
that he continued to serve in the continental line until the year 1780, 
when he joined the said Buford's regiment in Carolina ; that the said 
Buford was taken sick and went home, in the year 1781, and left said 
McDowell in service ; that he saw him no more until November, 1781, 
after the surrender of Cornwallis ; that he was not then in actual 
service, but belonged to the army ; that he never heard of his resign- 
ing, and considers he did serve to the cloSe of the war, in 1783. 
Though this affidavit is calculated to make an impression that Lieu- 
tenant McDowell did serve to the close of the war, yet it will be 
perceived, on examination, that we have only to suppose that Colonel 
Buford might have been mistaken in considering McDowell as belong- 
ing to the army when he saw him out of service in November, 1781, 
and it will be reconciled with the record evidence. Colonel Buford 
returned to Virginia in the year 1781, but at what time in 1781 is not 
stated. It might very well have been previous to June 16th of that 
year, when McDowell appears to have been in service. 

On this evidence, which is now clearly shown to have been inaccu- 
rate. Lieutenant McDowell was allowed the full pay under the act of 
Congress of May 15, 1828, and has been paid from the treasury over 
$3,000, to which he was not entitled. 

The Committee recommend that the claim be rejected. 



-/ 



OF COV^G^^^^., 




